AtmanIsBrahman

I want to get your opinions on this. Can you truly manifest or is it just a psychological gimmick? There are two types of manifestation. One is that you create an image of something in your mind and motivate yourself to pursue it. But this isn’t real manifestation because it’s your actions in the objective world that produce a result. For example, visualizing yourself getting hot women and then going out to talk to them. The second type is more interesting — manifesting as a spiritual endeavor. This means that you manifest something without actually taking action. For example, you think “I want to grow taller as an adult” and then that actually happens. This would be true manifestation because there is no objective-world action that would lead to the outcome. I have no direct experience of this type of manifestation, but my intuition tells me it might be possible. If what Leo says about reality being imaginary is true, it must be possible to do these kinds of things, even if it requires a way higher state of consciousness. Do you have any direct experience of “true” manifestation? If you do, explain what it was and your epistemology behind it, i.e. why it wasn’t an action in the real world that produced the result.

I’m going to try to manifest a height increase. This is an exercise in radical openmindedness. Those of you who think you’re open minded — would you be openminded enough to try this? I’ll update with my results.

Yes, kind of. I think of manifestation as a sub field of psychic abilities domain. It can also be called law of attraction, law of assumption, conscious creation, or affirmation practice.

Chris Langan has a great mind in many ways, but his theory is fundamentally conceptual. He gets some things wrong, such as hell existing. He also has weird political views. But yes, definitely worth looking into. This is probably the most interesting Curt interview, after Leo of course.

Hmmm… I definitely agree that focusing your energy on something will affect your life in some way. The question is how much it can actually affect reality or “the dream” though. I just think that if you are imagining all of reality, you must be able to change it even on a physical level. One could argue that you wouldn’t want to do that because you’re beyond the ego’s desires in that state of consciousness, but I don’t really buy it. This is also where psychic phenomena, black magic, etc. come in. My intuition is that if these practices were 100% garbage, they wouldn’t have been practiced for so long in basically every human culture.

You’re being kind of cryptic with your words. It’s hard for me to get what you’re trying to say. I explained what I consider manifesting to be. It is making a change that wouldn’t have happened otherwise just through your thoughts as opposed to your actions. Do you have any experience with manifestation, or do you have a different idea of what it means?

In a conversation, when someone mentions xyz and then the other person says “That’s crazy, I was just thinking about xyz” or “I have a friend who did xyz thing.” It’s fake and just trying to appeal to the other person’s ego.

I agree with you generally, but what if you buy the watch because you want to appear high-status and wealthy, even though you don’t personally value it at all? Are you a conformist or a master social engineer? Or is wanting to appear high-status itself conformity? Even in this kind of example, it’s not so obvious that it’s conformity. Identifying conformity is a messy business.

Gym is definitely an important part of self help. You will be respected more and treated better with an aesthetic physique

Just from watching part of the podcast, it seems like he has a bit of a resigned, depressed outlook on life — not that uncommon among intellectual types who don’t do spirituality. It feels like he’s decided to take the little tidbits of joy he can get from life. Not sure this is the peak of wisdom/maturity.

There are many ways to live a fulfilling life. Stage blue religion will get you a narrow, closed-in kind of life. Is it fulfilling? I don’t know. That’s up to you to decide. But why are you choosing Islam and not Christianity? Only because that’s your culture. So really you just want to fit in. The choices are: move somewhere else, conform, or risk being different.

I can’t answer from experience as I’m an INTJ, but I can answer based on what I know about INTPs. They have a reputation for being unproductive people living in their mom’s basement if their intelligence isn’t nurtured properly. When they are productive, it revolves around deep intellectual curiosity where Ti hero can apply itself to analytical understanding with the help of Ne parent. An INTP can probably answer better what it looks like for them though.

I don’t think it has to be conformity. Rap is basically a form of music that uses rhythm and cadences over an instrumental. A lot of what rappers say and do is conformity, I agree, but not the genre itself.

Hi Leo, I have a question about #441. You say that the answer to "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is that there is Everything. But then you say it doesn't mean that there is a planet filled with flamingos or something like that out there. Wouldn't it mean exactly that? You also say that Everything exists outside of your field of perception. Doesn't this contradict solipsism? And what is this everything if not every possibility, including a planet full of flamingos?

The mind is not an honest actor Big picture understanding is key What rationalism is and why it fails Reality as absolute infinity

What is the most surprising insight you had? How does your understanding now compare with the masculine/feminine polarity in spirituality?

Being against looksmaxxing

Second this!

I’ve been thinking about making this post for a while. I just want to alert you guys to the fact that looks are important for dating. Pickup is nice and all and does help, but our looks matter more realistically. If a very attractive guy does pickup, he will have WAY better results than an average person, let alone someone below average. Let me clarify that I’m not one of the ideological “blackpilled” looksmaxxing people who have been circulating lately. But I have looked into the looksmaxxing space to extract the juice and leave behind all the resentment, ideology, and noise. Why are looks important? Simply put, we evaluate people’s attractiveness almost instantly, as a biologically ingrained mechanism. We essentially have a perfect looks-rating device that we use unconsciously, though we ironically can’t give accurate ratings (people are rated 7/10 on average, which is stupid). Looks are an indicator of genetic quality and there are good survival reasons for why we value them. Doing the whole Owen Cook pickup thing is ineffective if you look bad. Even granted that it helps you get better with women (and I don’t really care to debate how much it does), it’s silly not to be optimizing the other factor that makes you have success with women— looks. Now I’ll evaluate Leo’s looks profile. This is just an honest assessment and not a personal attack. Leo is 6’2. This is a huge advantage in attractiveness, as height is a big factor in addition to facial harmony. The average male height is 5’9, so Leo towers over the average male by 5 inches. Think about this in a club environment—Leo is able to see above other people and actively heightmogs the vast majority of people. 6’2-6’3 is also often considered the ideal height, as beyond that there are diminishing returns and a degree of “freak effect.” Next, Leo is not attractive but not unattractive either facially. I’d estimate he’s probably slightly above average. But what’s interesting is how he has unknowingly looksmaxxed subtly, which is ironic given the emphasis on pickup. The biggest looksmax by far is having a low body fat percentage, which makes your facial structure more visible. Fat is bad for looks, and the ideal range is considered to be 8-12 percent body fat (depending on your specific genetics). Leo is quite lean, far more so than the average person. Additionally, Leo’s facial hair covers a likely suboptimal lower third (chin and jaw area), which is another effective looksmax. So what if Leo was 5’9, overweight, and had no facial hair? Would the results be the same? My point stands. The practical upshot of this is that improving your looks is helpful and worth doing. There is a lot of research into this subject you can do, and you have a choice how far to go, from softmaxxes (non-invasive things like hairstyle, clothing, skincare) all the way to hardmaxxes (surgeries). Obviously be safe and don’t buy into the incel ideology BS. Objections: Looksmaxxing isn’t spiritual. True, but getting laid isn’t spiritual in general; it is survival. If you’re doing survival, might as well do it effectively Why change your face? That’s so insecure/feminine/low-consciousness. Look, being attached to how your face looks is classic ego. The stigma against rhinoplasties is a part of this. If someone wants to improve their nose based on objective considerations and they are well-informed, surgery is awesome. There’s also a certain beauty to aesthetics for their own sake. By looksmaxxing, you are mainly just doing a survival activity, but since you’re focused on the actual truth of attraction, it is a microdose of spiritual embodiment— as it’s closer to truth than “coping”. Spirituality is just seeing the Truth.

Andrew Tate recently got arrested, but he recorded a podcast soon before. There are some lessons to learn from this podcast. 1) You learn about deception mechanisms 2) You learn how a narcissist/egomaniac makes sense of reality and convinces people 3) Being corrupt boomerangs on you 4) It's honestly very entertaining TLDR of the podcast: Andrew Tate explains the full timeline from his rise to fame to the present. He frames himself as initially gaining a niche following from saying whatever he wants on social media. Then, he gets the idea to start a non-traditional school that teaches people how to make money. He gets subscribers and soon gets an offer for 50 million, which he describes as similar to Hollywood contracts that limit what famous people can say. He declines, ruffling feathers with powerful people, especially the British state. A woman falsely accuses him of human trafficking. Then he gets into more and more legal trouble, which he believes is contrived by the British in collaboration with the corrupt Romanian legal system, to shut him down because he is "capable of starting a revolution." He spends months in prison, developing PTSD and ruining his mental health. Tate tells an elaborate thriller movie-like story involving multiple break-ins to his house, framing himself as some kind of real-life John Wick. My Take Tate conveniently leaves out the fact that he ran a shady webcam business prior to becoming famous. He has admitted to using the loverboy method on video, and his “university” contained instruction on how to use this method. It is less likely that Tate was persecuted as a political enemy than that he got exposed for his scheme due to literally teaching it. Overall, it’s very interesting to see the self deception play out. I don’t doubt that Tate suffered in Romanian prison, but that’s because the corruption he planned to benefit from backfired on him. This podcast is a good lesson in seeing through the tricks of con-men. Tate frames everything as him being wronged and probably even believes it. It also goes to show the intelligence of survival. Tate, sensing that he is cornered like an animal, gets on a podcast and spins a highly believable, intricate narrative about how he’s been set up. An uninformed audience would probably side with him. Survival can be very intelligent. Andrew Tate has a strong intellect — it is obvious from his speech — but wisdom? True intelligence? No.

I did some more research and thought about it more, and I was being too impartial. Tate doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt here. I edited my post a little bit to have a more clearheaded analysis.

I’m asking this because I have sober awakenings about every 3 weeks (give or take)—usually induced by thinking about reality or nothing at all. I’m trying to get a sense of how common this is, and how it relates to others’ experiences.

So a person can develop "intelligence" -- wisdom and knowledge -- but IQ is fixed. Is this an accurate explanation of your position? Do you think that G is the same thing as the raw capacity to understand reality, meaning someone's spiritual abilities are capped by it?

Rule #1: don’t assume people are more conscious than they are

When you come across a video with this title, you expect it to be somewhat profound. Unfortunately, Curt spends the entire video talking about conceptual abstractions attempting to define existence— which of course is impossible. He treats the subject as if it’s some kind of academic debate that we’ll eventually find the answer to, if only we refine our conceptual abstractions well enough. But Existence is first order, so it’s impossible. I recommend watching this video to see how the rationalist mind confuses itself. It’s honestly sad to see that this is the state of philosophy and science in the 21st century. This underscores the need for big picture thinking, openmindedness, nonconformity, etc. — basically what Leo teaches. Otherwise philosophy becomes a joke.